Interstatedad, Xiggi, all: Cabinet predictions?

<p>Rice to be Secretary of State? Guiliani take post? Predictions?</p>

<p>Giuliani goes into the administration somewhere for sure. He earned it, and needs a podium for the 2008 election. Best for him is something that allows him to sustain his base in New York while spending time on issues (and wooing voters) in the West as well.</p>

<p>I'll say it again. If Giuliani runs, he'll win. Everyone loves that man. Plus, he's not too ideological like Bush and he has a conscience. Schwarzenneger also will try to do something (just not prez) unless he gets his clones to eat all the Constitutions they want. It would be clonely at the top, then.</p>

<p>Rice, John Danforth, or Giuliani may become SecState if Powell chooses not to continue. For SecDefense, Rumsfeld is more likely to be retiring, since he's already 72.</p>

<p>Ashcroft is also deciding not to continue as Attorney General.</p>



<p>I don't think that he can win the Republican nomination. There have been a number of northeast "Rockefeller Republicans" in recent years with centrist views that would make them formidable candidates: Guliani, Bill Weld of Massachusetts. Unfortunately, their pro-choice positions make them unacceptable to the Republican party's fringe consistutency.</p>

<p>That is the dilemna both parties face. The primary system favors candidates who energize the hard-core constituency (read "fundraising"). But, these candidates have the most difficult time appealing to the middle ground voters in the general election: voters who favor centrist policies on social issues and might swing to either party for the right candidate.</p>

<p>Well, I know you don't want some bleeding-heart leftist kooky liberal's views, but Weld and Giuliani are okay with me too. Weld in fact, I would have gladly picked him way over Kerry.</p>

<p>Giuliani will not make it past the primaries if he does run. primary voters, as a whole, are much less likely to be centrist or moderate. They will NOT accept a Northern moderate REpublican.</p>

<p>Of course I want liberal views too. Don't count Guliani out because he is more socially liberal. After watching the Dems, the Republicans will be pragmatic. Hilary is almost certain to be the Dem candidate. Republicans will happily vote for Guliani given that choice. Historically, the Republicans have always kept their eye on the ball in choosing a candidate. Dems have a bit of a proble there!</p>

<p>Frankly, I'm not sure that a lot of Democrats would vote for Hilary, I'm not at all sure that I would. I would probably pick Giuliani over her. I also truly do not believe the US as it is presently constituted is anywhere remotely close to electing a woman as president or even vice-president (and I am a feminist, but especially considering the recent vote, as the religious right is also staunchly of the view that women are subservient to men and have no particular role in the workplace, let along politics).</p>

<p>If Hillary runs in 2008 then that argues against Giuliani on the Republican ticket, as she would win the contest between them for the NY vote easily. But if Hillary is not on the ticket, the G stands a good chance of delivering New York (and the election) to the Republicans. At the very least, New York would be seriously in play in G were on the Republican ticket.</p>

<p>Jeb Bush may well be the 2008 Candidate for the Republicans, in which case G is a great VP/running mate for him. Only Schwarzeneggar would be better.</p>

<p>I heard a news commentator say that Rudy may be considered for attorney general. It seems like a good choice since he seems to be liked by both the left (at least for a Republican) and the right and would certainly appeal to the left if he replaced Ashcroft who is a lightening rod. It also may be a better platform from which to launch a presidential bid.</p>

<p>From a Democratic 2008 perspective, what do people think of Bill Richardson? He has always struck me as being very believable and not prone to letting politics interfere with foreign policy (e.g., when the Democrats were trying to tar Bush for mishandling North Korea, he had the courage to say that Bush was handling it exactly right in his opinion.)</p>

<p>Certainly any candidate would love NY and all of it's votes, but it's not crucial or expected for a Rep candidate. It's interesting that so many of you folks think the Country in not ready for a woman Pres. In my age group, this is an arguement that hardly comes up. Here, everyone thinks it's Hilary in 08. With her svengali husband and Terry McAullif, she has a good shot. Especially with Bubba on the ticket.</p>

<p>Bobby, it has little to do with "the country is not ready for a woman pres." It's more along the lines of "much of the country cannot stand Hilary Clinton."</p>

<p>Anyway, I'm hoping Giuliani will be the Attorny General, and I'm guessing Rice will move to Sec. of State if Powell quits. Pretty much everyone would remain the same, I think, but I would love if McCain would be Sec. of Defense instead of Rumsfeld, but that is definitely a longshot, perhpas impossible.</p>

<p>I hope to see several changes. I am overjoyed to see Ashcroft gone. While I think that Giulani is a good candidate, I'd rather see him replace Tom Ridge at the Home Security. For the Justice Department of Justice, I'd hope Bush appoints a moderate and resist appointing another misguided hardliner. </p>

<p>Although I've little hope for that to happen, Bush should replace Jon Snow at the Treasury. I expect Rice to be considered for Rumsfeld or Powell post. </p>

<p>I hope that Bush will look at a few Democrats, especially since Transportation Secretary Mineta is leaving. I would not mind seeing new faces for Education and Labor.</p>

<p>As far as the 2008 elections, it is way too premature to speculate. The names that are tossed around 2 years before the process starts tend to vanish rapidly. After all, did ANYONE consider Bill Clinton to be a potential candidate when Bush Senior took office or even two years later? </p>

<p>From my vantage point, the main candidates -with a chance to win- will again be southerners. I do not think that Giulani or Hillary Clinton could win the general election, but for different reasons. As a southerner with with strong minority appeal and international connections, New Mexico's Richardson could be an interesting candidate.</p>

<p>I just don't think it's plausible for Hilary to run in 2008. I'm in no way saying a woman couldn't lead this nation, but I don't imagine the American people would put their faith in a woman at this point. There are many egotistical males out there who would specifically vote for a male canidate no matter what party affiliation. Anyways, the Democrats can't compete with either John McCain or Rudy Giuliani; they have crossover appeal that would seemingly be impossible to overcome.</p>

<p>The problem is that McCain or Giuliani would not be able to make it out of the primaries, much less actually get to run for presidency. Primary voters (both Democrats and Republicans) are always more firmly rooted in their beliefs and are more partisan. Moderate republicans like McCain and Giuliani won't stand a chance.</p>

<p>uc_benz, agreed on both points. vancat, I don't know about that. Depends, again, on what happens to this country. If it tilts too far in one direction, I think people will again seek a moderate, even within their own party. And electability counts for a lot in who even gets the initial support to start a campaign.</p>

<p>Unlikely. Primary voters, as a whole, are usually political junkies. They are staunch supporters of their own party, and are far more rooted in their beliefs than the typical swing voter.This is simply a fact. </p>

<p>I'd say its very unlikely, though of course not entirely impossible, that Giuliani or McCain could win the primary.</p>

<p>Well, anyway, I am liking some of the suggestions I am seeing, although do you really think that Rice should be secretary of state? I thought that there was a lot of grumbling that she had been largely ineffective in her present position.</p>